"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Badly drawn my ass.  You just simply can't tell apart actors from CG doubles
> from the rendering itself.  It's the animation, when they start moving, that
> makes you clearly see that no human being would ever be able to move that way,
> and thus, spell FAKE all over it.  Rendering itself is top-notch.

Well, that fight was edited so snappily that you can't really spot shortcomings
in the animation. I recall that there are a couple of split seconds where Neo's
digital stuntman looks particularly flat and artificial. But yeah, I'd say most
of the time the CG was superb.

> Super punch?
>  Looks truly like Smith's face until it deforms beyond what the actor would take
> for any money whatsoever...

Haha, although that bit does annoy me for another reason - the slo-mo raindrops
are all long stringy blobs, not the perfect spheres they should be (yeah I
know, it's the matrix, it's coded differently to reality, yadda yadda ;-) )

> BTW, pointless or not and despite the overly hysterical finish, the sequels were
> quite good.  Here's my quick summary:
>
> Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions

Hey, you just listed them in the order you saw them! Put some thought into it,
man! ;-) I do like the dock battle in the third film tho. And there's that
moment of poetic beauty when the ship breaks through the clouds on that
parabolic arc...

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
> want to go see it ;-)

True. I expected both Hitchcock and Wanted to be lame, but I quite enjoyed 
both.  They were both much better than the general populace said they were, 
methinks, probably because of the expectations like Warp talks about.

On the other hand, I was gravely disappointed in Beetlejuice. A fabulous 
concept completely ignored in favor of making it slapstick. "I'm glad 
someone else took the idea and did it right," he said, avoiding spoilers.

> Oh yeah, and I'm with you on the Pirates films.

I wonder if you could count "Haunted House" (Eddie Murphy) as a sequel to 
the first Pirates film. Sort of "take the idea of turning a ride into a 
comedy movie" sequel that failed because it wasn't the ride that made people 
like Pirates.

Does anyone remember the *old* Pirates ride in disneyworld, with the talking 
skeletons and such?  They really toned it down, I fear.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Haha, although that bit does annoy me for another reason - the slo-mo raindrops
> are all long stringy blobs, not the perfect spheres they should be 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/e/eb/RaindropShape.jpg

Actually, raindrops falling look a lot like bubbles rising. They're not 
round, their little upside-down cups.

> I do like the dock battle in the third film tho.

I was the only person in the theatre that laughed when the Oracle's sidekick 
opened the door with the special key the first time. Then about another 10% 
of the audience laughed when Neo said "These are back doors, aren't they?" 
We must have had an unusually low concentration of geeks that day.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The wraith brothers were cool, made for really interesting fight 
> sequences.

Yes. And they were also excellent because of their personalities. You could 
just see these invincible immortal loners with no connection to the rest of 
the world, just drifting along, killing people because it didn't really 
matter to them...

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> round, their little upside-down cups.

round, they're little upside-down cups. :-)



-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Yup, that'll work too... although if I expect a movie to suck too much, I won't
> > want to go see it ;-)
>
> True. I expected both Hitchcock and Wanted to be lame, but I quite enjoyed
> both.

Um, do you mean Hancock or Hitch? Or have I just missed a film called Hitchcock
;-)

I enjoyed Wanted very much - best-ever use of slow-mo keyboards... :)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Um, do you mean Hancock or Hitch? 

Heh. Hancock. Altho Hitch was good too.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Matrix > Reloaded > Revolutions
>
> Hey, you just listed them in the order you saw them! Put some thought into it,
> man! ;-)

Still true, anyway. :P

Really, what was the big impact of the first movie:  suggesting this reality is
all but a simulation.  You can't beat that in sequels.

> I do like the dock battle in the third film tho. And there's that
> moment of poetic beauty when the ship breaks through the clouds on that
> parabolic arc...

Yes, first time they see the sun for real.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> True. I expected both Hitchcock

Hancock, right?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I like how they managed to make Shrek II *better* than Shrek I. As in, 
> geniunely better. Actually, there have been a few films like that. All 
> too often, a film comes out, it's a success, they make a sequel - even 
> if that doesn't make any sense. But sometimes, they manage to make a 
> really good sequel.

  Terminator, Terminator 2.
  Max Max, Mad Max 2.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message